Neighbor News, Letter to the Editor: Still defining the word ‘sprawl’ and debating the beauty of nature vs. needs

There have been two letters expressing concerns to points raised in my letter, dated Jan. 22. I would like to respond to those concerns.

First, both suggested definitions of sprawl. Still, no matter how one chooses to define it, "sprawl" is fundamentally buildings which consist of the following: homes, doctor’s office, restaurants, churches, schools, office building where people work, hardware stores, super markets, etc. One sure point about markets is that if those building are not used, builders will stop building them.

As the builders will run out of money when no one pays them for the space, that is unless, government chooses to subsidize the building as it does with low income housing.

Furthermore, real estate reports state that "the vacancy rate remained at 15.1 percent" despite absorption of new buildings in New Jersey. All of which, contradicts the writers' points that the development is "unneeded" or unwanted.

Second, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I completely understand the writers love the natural environment. They are free to do that. However, in a free society they should not have the right to impose their views on others. They are free to buy — or raise the money to buy and preserve all the land they want. They should not have the right to tell others what to do with his or her property.

Just as I should not have the right to tell anyone he/she should plant the type of trees or shrubbery I deem most attractive.

I also understand the writers will claim I am in the in minority and they are representing the majority. However, if that is the case, they have nothing to fear from what they call "overdevelopment." People won't go to the stores, they won't buy homes, they won't work in offices, they won't have doctors’ offices — none of this would have been built because few wanted that building. And there certainly would not be more building as the market will responds very well when no one wants the products offered.

Which brings me to my third point. I always find it hard to understand why those who live in homes believe their home was not sprawl but future homes are a problem.

I would like those who believe the condos which are to be built are sprawl to look a future owner in the face and tell that family they do not deserve to live here. Or I challenge someone who now owns a home to tell a family that can finally move out of a small apartment that the home they want to build is unsightly sprawl.

Finally, yes there is a character to our towns, but times change. Our town is not the same as it was 100 years ago, or 50 years, etc.

So I am not sure why we need to freeze in time whatever exists today. Can one imagine if those who lived here 100 years ago had the right to preserve the town as it was? We would not have cable, internet, phones, the schools, or most of the homes we live in today.

In closing, I understand and respect the others writers desire for the beauty of nature. But others also have desires for their ways of life. Please remember, people have choices and should always be allowed to do so. Thus, no one can make a community "subservient" to "corporate demands."

The writers may not like the choices people have made which leads to the building. Still, I like to appreciate the nice homes that have resulted. I — despite doing most of my shopping online — am happy that those who want to buy organic food, or a special bike or used clothes, attend church, or take their children to music lessons are able to do so "locally."

In other words, one cannot buy, work and go to doctors locally without having the buildings to house those services.